NIPC Law

Etihad Stadium Author Cléria De Souza   Licence CC BY  2.0   Source Wikimedia Commons   Jane Lambert Patents Court   (Mr Justice Meade)    AIM Sport Vision AG v Supponor Ltd and anothe r [2023] EWHC 164 (Pat) (30 Jan 2023) In  AIM Sport Vision AG v Supponor Ltd and another [2023] EWHC 164 (Pat) (30 Jan 2023), the claimant, AIM Sport Vision ("AIM"), accused the defendants, Supponor OY and Supponor Ltd. ("Supponor") of infringing its  European patent (UK)  3 295 663 B1  for digitally overlaying an image with another image with their "SVB System". The invention for which that patent had been granted enables the superimposition of advertisements in TV broadcasts of sporting events that are different from the advertisements seen by spectators on billboards in the stadium. They are also different from advertisements appearing in other television broadcasts of the same game. Thus, the spectators in the stadium may see an advertisement for beer on the billboards

Author Judicial Office UK Licence CC BY-SA 4.0   Source Wikimedia Commons   Jane Lambert Patents Court (Mr Justice Zacaroli) Parsons v Convatec Lt d [2023] EWHC 1535 (Pat) (26 June 2023) This was an application by an employer to strike out or summarily dismiss part of its employee's claim for compensation under s.40 of the Patents Act 1977.  S.7 (2) of the Patents Act 1977 states that a patent for an invention may be granted primarily to the inventor except where a rule of law or contract entitles someone else to claim the invention.  One such exception is provided by s.39  which entitles employers to claim their employees' inventions in certain circumstances.  Most employees who are expected to invent something in the course of their employment enjoy generous salaries and benefits but there are some inventions that are so valuable to the employer that it is just to reward the employee with something extra.  S.40 makes provision for such rewards which are known as "compe

  Jane Lambert Court of Appeal (Lords Justices Arnold and Stuart-Smith and Lady Justice Falk)  Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd and another v Astellas Pharma Inc [2023] EWCA Civ 880 (25 July 2023) This was an appeal against the dismissal of the claim by Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. and Teva UK Ltd. ("Teva") for revocation of  European Patent (UK) 1 559 427 B1  for a "Remedy for overactive bladder comprising acetic acid anilide derivative as the active ingredient" and Supplementary Protection Certificate No. SPC/GB13/035  and judgment on a counterclaim by Astellas Pharma Inc. ("Astellas") for infringement (see Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd v Astellas Pharma Inc . [2022] EWHC 1316 (Pat) (1 June 2022), It came on before Lords Justices Arnold and Sturt-Smith and Lady Justice Falk on 17 and 18 July 2023.  Judgment was handed down on 25 July 2023.  By a unanimous judgment the Court dismissed the appeal (see  Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd a

Author Stahlkocher   Licence CC BY-SA 3.0   Source Wikimedia Commons   Jane Lambert Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (HH Judge Hacon) Acedes Holdings LLP and another v Cliver Sutton Ltd and another   [ 2023] EWHC 2005 (IPEC) (7 Aug 2023) This was a counterclaim by the defendants for the invalidation and revocation of the first claimant's  trade mark number 905883806 .  The mark was AC COBRA registered for automobiles, cars and sports cars. The claimants had brought proceedings for infringement of that trade mark but they discontinued their claim shortly before the trial.  The counterclaim came on for trial before His Honour Judge Hacon on 4 July 2023.  By para [84] of his judgment of 7 Aug 2023, the learned judge dismissed the counterclaim ( Acedes Holdings LLP and another v Cliver Sutton Ltd and another [2023] EWHC 2005). The Issues Judge Hacon identified the issues in para [7] of his judgment: "(1) Whether AC Cobra Mark was invalidly registered pursuant to s.5 (2) and